Now I’ll list evidence of particular observations and assumptions that there is no life outside of Burden Valley.

1. Ann’s parents drove to Ogdentown and found “Just dead bodies” and “dead birds all over the streets” (3).

2. Looking out from the hill at the north end of the valley, Ann sees, “On the other side of the ridge, even on the other side of Burden Hill, there are no leaves; everything is dead” (4).

3. Ann has also occasionally looked out from the hills on all sides of the valley, and she has never seen any sign of life: “When I look beyond, I see that all the trees are dead, and there is never a sign of anything moving” (9). Note she says, “NEVER.”

4. When Ann writes about Loomis’s 10-week journey from Ithaca, she reports, “all that way, all that time, he had seen no living thing—no people, no animals, no birds, no trees, not even insects—only gray wasteland, empty highways, and dead cities and towns. He had been ready to give up and turn back” (57). He also spent about 8 months making shorter excursions from the underground shelter in the mountains near Ithaca (63), presumably finding no sign of life.

Unqualified statements of belief that nothing lives outside the valley

The commenter Anne quibbles that statements by Loomis (and presumably Ann also) about there being no life outside the valley are “qualified,” claiming that this proves they think people probably survived elsewhere and they are not concerned about “saving humanity.” First of all, it’s not true that all statements are qualified.

1. Ann assumes that the end of radio broadcasts meant all people everywhere were dead: “When the last one [radio station] went off and stayed off, it came to me, finally, that nobody, no car, was ever going to come” (5). She does NOT assume that broadcasters might have simply lost power and could still be alive. Nor does she assume there might still be people alive who simply don’t have radio transmitters or are out of broadcast range. Nor does she assume that there could be other survivors who are just too far away or cannot travel through a contaminated wasteland to reach her. Rather, she assumes nobody is left to find her. This is what it means when she says, without qualification, “nobody...was ever going to come” (5).

2. On her parents’ second trip, they planned to go south through the gap to where the Amish lived and then “circle west to join the highway to Dean Town” (8). They never returned, and Ann concludes, “I know now there weren’t any Amish, nor anybody in Dean Town. They were all dead, too” (9). Of course, this belief about lands to the south is not a statement about the whole world, but it is an unqualified statement that she believes people are “all dead” in areas around the valley even though she cannot know for sure.

3. In Ann’s opinion, all migratory birds that left the valley are dead: “The other birds [except crows], moving about as they do, flew out into the deadness and died” (29). The birds she refers to just migrate within North America, but Ann does not consider it possible that they found other safe valleys to land in—even though birds would presumably have a good chance of spotting such places from high up. Rather, she is so certain in her belief that she states as a fact that all birds which left Burden Valley have died.

4. Ann decides to help Loomis when he becomes sick because she is sure she will be alone in the valley for the rest of her life if he dies: “the thought of the house and the valley being empty again—this time forever, I am sure of that—seems so terrible I cannot bear it” (45). She does not think that MAYBE there are other people whom she can make contact with. She is certain that, if she abandons Loomis, she will have no human companionship for the rest of her life. This is similar to her certainty earlier “nobody... was ever going to come” (5).

5. Loomis thinks that people in all shelters around the world died when supplies ran out 3-12 months after the war, since the radiation levels did not decrease as expected. Ann describes Loomis’s attitude upon reaching a Chicago air base shelter and finding people had died of asphyxiation after a battle damaged the air circulation system: “In the end, he decided it really did not matter so much. Because all of the underground fallout shelters, this one and others around the world, had built-in time limits, enough air and water to last three months, six months, a year, on the assumption that after that it would be safe to go outside again. And that had not happened” (65). Loomis thought it didn’t matter much that people had died prematurely, since they would have suffocated anyway when the limited air supply ran out. It is important to note that Loomis specifies “all of the underground fallout shelters... around the world.” He seems to assume that no one could have survived for long after the war unless they were in an underground shelter, and people in shelters could only have survived from 3-12 months. Therefore, since the outside environment remains lethally radioactive over a year after the war, Loomis must believe there are now no other survivors outside of Burden Valley. These statements aren’t qualified.

6. In explaining the importance of the safe-suit, Loomis says, “You must understand...that except for ourselves, that suit is the most important thing in the world” (150). This is an unqualified statement that Ann and Loomis are the most important things in the world, an attitude which only makes sense if he believes there are no other human survivors of the war. The suit is second in importance because it is the only way for them to access contaminated areas outside Burden Valley in order to get useful information and materials, which implicitly are important only as means of helping Ann and Loomis to survive.

9. Clearly stated opinions that there is PROBABLY or possibly no life outside the valley

1. Before seeing Loomis approach, Ann thinks she is PROBABLY the last surviving human: “I was pretty sure I was the only person left in the world” (5).

2. Watching a column of smoke slowly approaching Burden Valley, Ann assumes that the stranger has PROBABLY seen no other signs of life on his whole journey: “He has probably seen nothing else all the way, wherever he came from” (15). She seems to base this assumption on her observation of the deadness visible all around the valley, but it is clear she assumes everywhere else is the same.

3. After seeing Loomis look surprised to hear a rooster and some cows, Ann makes the similar assumption he has PROBABLY not heard any other animal sounds since the war: “He looked amazed, as if he could not believe it. He probably had not heard an animal sound for more than a year” (26). Again, Ann does NOT assume optimistically that maybe he found other places with surviving animals during his travels through radioactive lands, or that he might have come from another enclave like Burden Valley. She seems to assume that anywhere he came from and traveled is probably as lifeless as the lands around Burden Valley.

4. In Loomis’s opinion, a so-called “meteorological enclave” such as Burden valley is virtually impossible—only “a theoretical possibility” (56). If the existence of even one such enclave is incredible, the implication is that it is unlikely any others exist.

Curious about the actual possibility of such a valley and finding no information online, I submitted a question to Yahoo Answers and got a very helpful response from the Norwegian pilot and meteorologist Michel Verheughe. He explained that such a self-contained weather system is only a theoretical possibility and doesn’t exist on Earth. The reason is that, in order for air in a valley to be separated from the rest of the atmosphere, the sides of a valley would have to rise as high as the tropopause (roughly 10 km over the poles, or 18 km over the equator). This is the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, where there is an inversion: layers of air increase in temperature with height, so the air neither rises nor sinks. Further, Michel pointed out that since valleys are formed by erosion, a completely enclosed valley would have to be formed differently, such as by a meteor strike.

Of course, Z for Zachariah is a work of fiction, so the author and readers are not bound by limitations of the real world. Still, knowing some facts about the real possibility of such a valley might help us judge whether Loomis speaks knowledgeably. It seems that Loomis is right to be amazed at the valley’s existence, thinking it is only “a theoretical possibility” (56). 5. Ann says of the crows, “They were probably the only wild birds left anywhere” (97). This statement adds to her earlier assertion that all birds died if they left the valley. In case anyone is tempted to think birds might have survived in other meteorological enclaves or outside North America, Ann here assumes there PROBABLY aren’t any other wild birds ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

6. Ann says it is a terrible thought that Loomis killed another man (his coworker Edward) because “he is the only other human being I am ever likely to know” (126). This is similar to her assertion before helping Loomis when he is sick. Then she was SURE he was the last man she’d ever meet. Now she thinks he PROBABLY is. The main difference between her thinking in each instance is that now she knows Loomis killed a man and she is starting to fear him again.

7. When Loomis tries to explain why Ann could not use the safe-suit to get novels from a town library, he states the assumption that Burden Valley might be last habitable place: “Except for this valley the rest of the world, as far as we know, is dangerous and uninhabitable. I don’t know how long it’s going to be that way--maybe forever” (150).

8. After Loomis recovers from his sickness, he tells Ann he has been having nightmares about food and worrying about their future, and he has realized they should think of the valley as the only habitable place left in the world: “I’ve been lying in the bed for a long time now, with nothing to do but think. And I realized we’ve got to plan as if this valley is the whole world, and we are starting a colony, one that will last permanently” (152). As the commenter Anne points out, Loomis doesn’t know absolutely that there is no other place people can live. The point is that the valley is the only place they KNOW can still support life, and they both think it PROBABLY is; so it is prudent for them to think of the valley as “the world.” It is the world in small, and readers should understand it as representing the problems of human societies at a personal level—problems of misunderstanding, lack of sympathy, and conflicting self-interest (Millay’s “greed”), like those that led to the world-ending war in the story’s background.

9. Ann knows that some plants need to be grown to save seeds, since there is no other way of getting new seeds anymore. The first time she writes of this problem, she notes, “although most of the seeds [in the store] would germinate after one year, after two years the percentage would decline, and after three or four they would not do well at all” (95). Again later, she writes of concern about seeds as one of the worries that return after her worries about Loomis’s health decrease: “We can live through the next winter on what is in the store, and so can the cows and the chickens. But there is a danger point beyond that, because the seeds I have are already two years old, and next year they will be three, and each year fewer of them will germinate. So I really needed to get some in the ground, if only to harvest the new seeds” (140). Ann clearly believes that there is no other way of getting more seeds if the ones in the store are allowed to lose fertility. There is no sign that she thinks the same plants might still exist in other places. When Loomis expresses concern over the same issue, he states the danger of extinction explicitly.

10. When Loomis pushes Ann to plant wheat and beets in order to prevent the extinction of those plant species, he is assuming that the plants in the valley are probably the last of their kind in the world: “The important thing is not to let the species die out” (155). If seeds in the store become infertile over time, those species will die out. He is thinking the same way about humans when he says (as noted above), “we’ve got to plan as if this valley is the whole word, and we are starting a colony, one that will last permanently” (152). They must plan this way because, as far as they know, the valley is the only remaining part of the world where life can continue.

11. Even when Ann is preparing to leave the safety of the valley, hoping to find the place she dreamed of where children are waiting for a teacher, she thinks Loomis might be the last person she will know: “His may be the last human voice that I will ever hear” (244).

12. In her last talk with Loomis, Ann again states that they might be the last 2 humans: “If you shoot me, you will really be alone. You searched for months and found no one else. There may not be anyone else...” (247).

10. Clearly stated opinions that society has ended, so its customs are irrelevant

1. In one of his nightmares about Edward trying to take the safe-suit to find his family, Loomis appears to respond to Edward’s claim of authority over him: “In charge. In charge of what?...Not anymore, Edward. It doesn’t mean anything now” (75-76).

Given the evidence in the story of worldwide contamination from biological weapons and high levels of radiation, and given the repeated assumptions by Ann and Loomis that they are probably the last human survivors, it is only reasonable for readers to conclude that no human society exists any longer. Even right after the war, when there were still some survivors in shelters and aboveground, it should be assumed that every society was fragmented, couldn’t function normally, and was in the process of rapidly disintegrating. The only information given about other survivors describes people struggling for survival in desperate situations. There were a few remaining people near a Boston radio station whose announcer pleaded for people to “act with dignity even in the face of death,” leading Ann to believe “something terrible was happening there” (6). Also, Loomis found signs of a battle at an air base shelter, where soldiers and civilians trying to get into the shelter ended up destroying its air circulation system, then eventually died on the outside (64). There is no evidence at all of any government radio broadcasts or organized rescue efforts. None at all.

Therefore, Loomis was correct to say that Edward’s authority in their lab had no meaning anymore. Loomis and Edward were just two survivors who had to reach an agreement about what was best for their mutual benefit and, perhaps, other survivors in shelters. Each was probably concerned mainly about his own interests (i.e., about either family or personal survival).

2. Ann assumes she can never have a career as she hoped: “It is hard for me to realize, even after all this time, that I am not going to be anything, not ever have a job or go anywhere or do anything except what I do here....That whole idea is over now; there are no more schools and there is no one to teach. I know that; yet I keep thinking about it” (131). Ann’s views here are similar to an explicit statement that nobody else has survived the war. She assumes society as she knew it has ended, so her former hope of having a teaching career in that society is now futile. Ann’s hope of being a teacher returns only when (while she is feverish, hiding in the wilderness, and desperate) she begins to dream there are other survivors isolated in similar valleys, including children waiting at school desks for a teacher to come.

Examining a blogger's "evidence" there are other survivors in habitable places

Now I’ll examine Anne’s “evidence” that other places ARE still habitable, Ann and Loomis are NOT the last survivors, and therefore the survival of humanity is NOT an issue of concern. I’ll try to arrange her points in the same order as the ones above to simplify comparison.

1. The significance of the title and setting:

Anne does not address these features of the story. However, I suspect she would dismiss both as irrelevant, saying simply that they have no special meaning. 2. The claim Ann is NOT concerned about saving the human race (1):Anne: Many of Steve’s postings frame the novel in terms of an epic struggle to save the earth for humanity. I don’t think the text supports this view.... It is about individuals and their personal interactions. Ann and Mr Loomis are insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

For one thing, Anne doesn’t seem aware of the protagonist’s comparison of herself with the speaker of Millay’s poem “Epitaph for the Race of Man.” (See above, Post 175.)

The problem with Anne’s interpretation is that it has almost nothing to do with the actual story. It is based entirely on speculations and simplistic misinterpretations that serve her all-important MORAL OBJECTIONS, which lie at the root of everything. Anne objects to the idea in itself that two people (especially Ann and Loomis) have the role of saving humanity. However, it is wholly irrelevant whether she approves of this concept or thinks the idea is impractical, since it is simply a FACT that the story presents us with this situation!

Viability:

In Post 163, Anne argues that 2 people are “not generally considered a viable breeding population.” She lists various obstacles: a larger community is needed for support (sharing work, providing medical care); child-raising would be too difficult if one parent died; the children might end up abandoned if both parents die; the narrow genetic base would cause problems for the next generation; and an incestuous commune probably wouldn’t be acceptable to Ann and Loomis.

All of this is IRRELEVANT because Ann and Loomis have no options, and any offspring they had would be in the same boat. They cannot choose to be in a normal community or pick partners from a wider genetic base. Of course they face many possible difficulties; but, given their situation, it is unreasonable to think they should make no effort to have a family and continue the human race. If they try, they at least have a chance of success.

And on what basis does the commenter Anne judge that an incestuous commune wouldn’t be acceptable to Ann and Loomis? Ann explicitly says they could “keep [humanity] from dying” (96), and Loomis plans “a colony, one that will last permanently” (152). Given that Ann clearly believes they are probably the last two people and they will never meet anyone else, how else could they keep humanity from dying through having children? How else could Loomis expect just the two of them to establish a PERMANENT colony?! Also, does Anne suggest that Ann and Loomis would be happier and better off living alone, without the support of even a companion?

Keep in mind that they ARE likened to Adam and Eve, and one of Ann’s favorite books in the Bible is Ecclesiastes, in which one of the most relevant passages to their situation is the following:

“Better two than one alone, since thus their work is really rewarding. If one should fall, the other helps him up; but what of the person with no one to help him up when he falls? Again: if two sleep together they keep warm, but how can anyone keep warm alone? Where one alone would be overcome, two will put up resistance; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” (Eccles. 4:9-12) The Claim Ann is NOT concerned with saving the human race (2)Pregnancy and Childbirth:

Pessimistic again, Anne cites maternal death rates in third world countries to speculate that the medical risks of childbirth are too great without modern medical facilities. In addition, she objects that it is unfair only Ann would have to bear all these risks.

Again, such arguments are unreasonable and irrelevant. Throughout our history, humans have had to face these problems, and we’ve managed to survive quite successfully—taking over the planet, in fact. Because Ann and Loomis have some modern facilities and could get helpful information and supplies from nearby towns if necessary, the risks for Ann would be far less than they have been for most women in history. Also, Ann would NOT need to be a kind of baby factory, having a child “every 14 to 18 months” as Anne predicts (based on absurd assumptions that Loomis is an irrational and cruel slave-driver?). Yes, it is unfair that Ann would have to face the greatest personal risk in childbearing, but it is ridiculous to complain about the injustice of biology! In doing so, she is like the Jewish activist in Monty Python’s Life of Brian who declares, “I want to be a woman!” and is said to be "struggling against reality.” Bearing children is, as Ann's name implies, her burden. As to whether she has the right to “control her body” and refuse to continue the species, there’s a discussion below.

Division of labor:

Anne is also pessimistic that Ann and Loomis could ever arrange a fair division of labor. She points out Loomis is “not well enough to contribute” and lacks necessary skills for day-to-day living (e.g., ability to fish), as if he’ll never get better and he’s incapable of learning. How hard is it to learn to fish? Then she lists more tedious irrelevant details about additional work they would have with children (e.g., making more food & clothes, doing more laundry, carrying more water). Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Again, people have had to deal with such problems all through history, so there’s no reason to think Ann and Loomis couldn’t manage. Loomis is far from useless. He has already saved labor by providing gas for the tractor, and the generator he is planning can help further, giving them a refrigerator and perhaps running water via the existing electric pump (eliminating the difficult task of carrying water) (16). When Loomis says he will be more help soon, there is no reason to doubt this. Also, if the protagonist is concerned about division of labor, she doesn’t show it. What she’s concerned about is only the WAY Loomis tells her what to do, as if he is taking charge—even though she always admits his concerns are sensible.

Ultimately, it is up to THEM to decide these matters, and Ann cannot reasonably expect a satisfying arrangement if she does not talk openly with Loomis about her concerns, she wants to make all the decisions on her own, and she runs away every time there’s a disagreement. When Ann runs away and thinks her unilaterally imposed system of sharing the valley without friendship is a “compromise,” she clearly doesn’t know what the word means.

Commitment:

Anne speculates further that Loomis would leave Ann if rescue came or if they discovered that life were continuing normally except in the northeastern states; and it would also be a serious problem if Loomis didn’t want “a formal commitment ceremony in the church.”

First, it is ridiculous to assume there is ANY chance of rescue or that life is continuing normally anywhere. Such assumptions show how little Anne understands the situation in the story, despite the numerous statements about it. It seems clearly a problem of wishful thinking that suits her preferred moralistic interpretation. Some research about the effects of a large-scale nuclear war might be helpful, perhaps along with reading a similar story such as Nevil Shute’s On the Beach.

Moreover, even IF rescue were possible in 5 or 15 years (as Anne suggests), how could Ann and Loomis know? They both believe they are the last survivors in the last habitable place, so it is prudent for them to make plans based on these assumptions. They do not have psychic powers enabling them to know the future. Is Anne suggesting that they should WAIT for 15 years before deciding what to do, just in case rescue comes? That would be quite idiotic and would greatly decrease their chances of success if they finally started a colony. Not exactly brilliant long-term planning!

As for having a church wedding, it is an extremely trivial issue. Loomis would probably think it more unnecessary than ever now that society no longer exists; but it would be an easy matter to go along with Ann if she insisted. If such customs were to continue, it would certainly be up to Ann to maintain them.

Examining a blogger's "evidence" there are other survivors in habitable places (2)Posted July 31, 2011 at Teachnology

The claim Ann is NOT concerned about saving the human race (3)

The importance of continuing the species:

Finally, getting to the apparent heart of her objections, Anne claims in Post 165 that preserving the human race should NOT be a priority anyway because “Evolution is a THEORY,” and “a woman’s right to control her own body is fundamental and
takes precedence over all the other considerations in this situation.”

However, the evidence of the story does NOT support ANY of Anne’s main assumptions—namely, that humanity’s survival isn’t an issue; that Loomis is just a deceitful and villainous sexual predator; and that Ann’s fears are always reasonable and justified.

1. Evolution is NOT just a hypothesis:

Regarding evolution, I’d like to point out first that it is NOT “just a theory” in the sense of being only a hypothesis. As Richard Dawkins explains in his recent book, it is a proven theory (like the theory of gravity), “a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed." It has also been accepted as such by the archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, most mainstream Christian organizations, Jews, and Muslims. If Anne is implying that Ann and Loomis need not worry about continuing the species because God will take care of it, obviously that would involve basing judgments about the story on religious beliefs rather than reason and textual evidence.

2. Women's rights are more of a "theory":

Also, if Anne assumes that the principle of women’s rights is NOT a theory, she is quite mistaken. Her cherished values are more theoretical than the theory of evolution, since moral values cannot be proven at all and consist only of what people choose to believe. Thus, values change over time and differ from one culture to another. Moral values aren’t absolutes. This point is also relevant because, in Burden Valley, morality depends entirely on what Ann and Loomis agree is fair. If they DON’T reach a compromise together (recognizing feminist principles or not), they are just two people pursuing their own selfish interests. If it comes down to this (i.e., each pursuing only self-interest), then morality is irrelevant anyway and what they do is just a matter of power, cunning, and practicality. In the end, Ann’s cunning trick of stealing the safe-suit enables
her to run away from the whole valley and avoid being a new “Eve.”

3. Trying to save the species is moral; refusing to do so is selfish:

Anne goes on to say of evolution, “It explains observed phenomena. It is not a DEITY that requires sacrifices.” It seems her main point about it is that continuing the evolution of a species is not important enough to sacrifice anyone’s rights for, which is set against her claim that “a woman’s right to control her own body...takes precedence over all.”

Anne at first tries to sidestep the issue of saving the species by arguing that the human race is NOT actually in danger in the story, and Ann and Loomis are NOT actually concerned about it. However, evidence proves otherwise (as shown by Ann’s thoughts about Millay’s poem and Loomis’s plans for a colony). Now Anne is claiming that the rights of a woman supersede everything else, as if Feminism were the “deity” sacrifices should be made to rather than Evolution—"her" absolute principle more important than "mine."

So is it reasonable that the rights of ONE person should be more important than the survival of the whole human species? Looking at the matter logically, it is a moral issue; and morality means acting with concern for others’ interests rather than just being self-interested. Therefore, if there were only one woman and one man left, the woman would be morally obligated to have children even if she didn’t want to (e.g., because of not liking the man enough, or because of preferring to live alone in a cave). If the last man were really concerned about continuing their species (valuing the achievements of past humans and the future potential of their descendants), his desire to mate with her would be moral, whereas the last woman’s refusal to cooperate would be selfish. Maybe the instinctual urge to procreate could even be viewed as a kind of moral imperative of a species.

4. There can be no women's rights without women!

Also, if the theoretical last woman cared about women’s rights, shouldn’t she also care that women continue to exist? If the last woman didn’t have children, then there would be no more women and no more women’s rights for the rest of eternity. This seems to be a case of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

5. Ann explicitly states that concern for saving the species justifies killing:

What’s more, the story itself suggests that concern for saving humanity is important enough to justify violating personal rights. When Ann debates with herself whether it was wrong for Loomis to kill Edward, she considers, “He may have been thinking not just of himself, but of human survival” (127). Here, the protagonist shows a belief that concern for saving the species can justify even killing a person. Ann reasons that Loomis might have planned to use the suit to help other people trapped in shelters, which in fact is what he tried to do. Logically, then, if the need to save the species can be a justification for killing, surely it can also be a justification for trying to get in bed with the last surviving woman!

The claim Ann is NOT concerned about saving the human race (4)6. To save the species, the last woman’s willing cooperation is a practical necessity:

Also, in the event the last man plans any project to continue the species, it is simply a practical necessity to secure the cooperation of the last woman! Otherwise, the project could have no chance of success. Supposing the theoretical last man is concerned about saving his species, would it be reasonable of him to think he could FORCE the last woman not only to have sex but to undergo several pregnancies and raise children over the course of many years? How could this possibly be done? If the woman felt oppressed, she could easily sabotage the whole project at any time by killing the last man, running away, or committing suicide. Such a long-term project obviously requires the willing cooperation and commitment of the woman merely for practical reasons!

7. Loomis is too practical to plan to force Ann’s cooperation or to risk losing it for short-term pleasure:

Given the practical need for Ann’s willing cooperation in continuing their species (as well as to give both of them the best chance for survival), it makes no sense that Loomis would either try to force Ann’s cooperation or risk the whole future of humanity just for a bit of fun one night.

In an attempt to make Loomis’s attempt at “rape” consistent with his behavior throughout the story, the commenter Anne assumes he has plotted all along to enslave and exploit Ann. In her view, then, nothing reasonable he says or does can be trusted because his attempt to sleep with Ann proves he has just been thinking of sex the whole time. This is an absurd interpretation, ignoring or twisting most of the evidence about Loomis’s character to suit a moral attitude about ONE action of his.

Loomis seems fairly sensible and practical most of the time, not irrational or insane. Even after she runs away, Ann admits that he is better than her at planning carefully with a “long-term view” (217). He also seems honest, not a deceiver. And, except for the ONE occasion when he tries to get in her bed, he shows no interest in sex or romance. Thus, when Ann thinks of marrying him, she worries, “Mr. Loomis had not indicated the slightest interest in any such idea” (81)—which presumably means he hasn’t shown any interest in her as a partner yet. Later, she writes similarly, “Nor did he seem to have any curiosity or interest in me, except once he had seemed to like my playing the piano” (157). If he were always scheming to seduce her, Ann probably would have noticed a look of desire sometimes—or at least once!

We know Loomis is concerned about saving the human race because he worries other species might die out, he thinks he and Ann are the last humans, and he tells her they need to start a colony. We know Ann is aware of this idea, and, further, she thinks it is almost the same as her hope they can “keep [humanity] from dying” (96). Unless Ann is very ignorant (believing babies are delivered by storks, for instance), she must realize that these plans oblige them to have sex so they can have children. Therefore, on the night Loomis tries to sleep with Ann, they have already talked about these matters though not explicitly about sex), and Ann has shown no objection yet.

Is it likely, then, that the seemingly reasonable, practical, and prudent Loomis would try to rape Ann as a first step in enslaving her and forcing her to raise children against her will? Or is it more likely that he assumes she has already indicated a willingness to go along with a project of starting a colony? Such an assumption on his part would also explain his behavior when they talk after his “attempted rape.” To Ann’s surprise, he hopes she will return and “be friends again,” acting “as if nothing had happened” (189). When she refuses to return, he doesn’t understand: “Not come back?...But why not?” (189). Clearly, Loomis does NOT think he has tried to violate Ann’s rights—and, as a well-educated Cornell graduate of the 1960s, Loomis can surely be presumed to be aware of human rights issues, including women’s liberation.

I’ll try to give a more detailed analysis of the 2 characters later. For now, what is important to understand is that Loomis is clearly NOT trying to enslave Ann, as she sometimes fears. He does NOT have an irrational plan to force Ann to raise children to save the species. And it is incredibly reductive to think, “All Mr Loomis is doing is looking for a little sexual relief,” as the commenter Anne claims.The claim Ann is NOT concerned about saving the human race (5):8. Ann is still able to forgive Loomis and sympathize with him:

Finally, it is important to note that Ann herself doesn’t seem to really believe Loomis is a cruel man determined to enslave her. If she really thinks he is so wicked, how can she change her mind about him after 2 weeks in hiding, deciding she should sympathize with his loneliness and think of being friendly with him again (218)? How can she FORGIVE his behavior? Answer: She is calming down and starting to be more reasonable and practical again.

Her thinking about Loomis changes because after 10 days he takes the tractor key and locks the store, and Ann deduces (very logically) that he might be doing these things in reaction to her staying away. Thinking that he might be “acting from despair” because he “cannot stand being alone” (218), she asks herself, “Why should I not, then, offer to talk to him...in the evenings” (218)? And she decides, “There was no reason I should not be as friendly as safety permitted. It was a sensible plan” (218). What happens here is that she thinks of a possible motive for Loomis’s actions that is understandable and deserving of sympathy, and then she comes to the very sensible realization that it could improve their relationship if she TALKS with him regularly, offering him friendship again.

This is arguably the most sensible attitude she has taken towards Loomis up until this point in their relationship. Moreover, it is impossible that Ann could think this way about Loomis if she really believed that his attempt to sleep with her was unforgivable and proved he was completely untrustworthy. The only problem is that she is TOO LATE in being sympathetic and reasonable. If Ann had only sympathized with Loomis this way a week or so earlier, they could have finally talked openly and reached an understanding. However, as Ann realizes, her extreme behavior has provoked a reaction from Loomis. By the time she thinks of sympathizing and offering friendship again, Loomis is preparing an extreme reaction of his own.

The commenter Anne’s extremely suspicious and hostile attitude towards Loomis is like the protagonist Ann’s hysterical reaction to his attempt to sleep with her, except that the commenter Anne generalizes and rationalizes this attitude even more than the protagonist! It is an interpretation of Loomis that corresponds only with the protagonist’s most extreme thoughts about him.

Summary of points (on the importance of continuing the species)

Though Anne (with an “e”) does not wish to see it, Ann and Loomis both recognize the importance of their continuing the species. Ann explicitly identifies herself with the speaker in Millay’s poem, “Epitaph for the Race of Man,” and she hopes that she and Loomis can “keep [the race] from dying.” She also repeatedly expresses the desire for a companion and children, and she feels sad about abandoning all these hopes as she prepares to leave the valley (235, 236). The author has also suggested Loomis and Ann’s similarity to Adam and Eve, and has included several descriptions of crows suggesting they are symbolic of successful survivors, staying in the valley and having babies. Etcetera, etcetera. There is abundant evidence that readers should assume Burden Valley is the last habitable place, Ann and Loomis are the last people, and they have the responsibility to continue the human race.

What happens in the story is NOT, as Anne imagines, an issue of “a man’s right to companionship and sexual pleasure” or “the continuance of the family line.” Such issues are completely irrelevant here because Ann and Loomis are the last two people and the survival of the human species is at stake. The threat of extinction is NOT just a deception or excuse Loomis uses for sex! What’s relevant is that companionship is a HUMAN need (Ann feels it, too!), they both view themselves as responsible for continuing their species, and sex is simply a necessary part of procreation. These issues ARE relevant because there is strong textual evidence that they are. All they need to do is talk and reach a reasonable understanding.

In conclusion, the commenter Anne’s objection to the view that Ann and Loomis bear the burden of continuing the human race is NOT really based on evidence in the story. It appears to be based mainly on: unreasonable assumptions about what is possible in the story; personal disapproval of 2 people starting a colony; strong personal convictions about the sexual rights of women (and the utter despicability of men who overlook those rights in ANY situation); and possibly also religious beliefs about the origin and fate of the human race.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.